Counter

Become a Fan

Cat Quote

April 30, 2007

The mysterious disappearance of colonies of honeybees across several nations has alarmed commercial beekeepers who rent their services to a variety of large farming operations, due to what has been termed the Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). Entomologists and apiologists have been proposing and testing hypotheses ranging from radiation from cell phones ('Turn off your cell phones and Save a Beehive') to GM crops (courtesy the great Monsatan). We have purported quotes from the famed Einstein himself, credited with sobering utterances such as

"If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only
have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no
more plants, no more animals, no more man."

A very interesting story from the front page of Sunday's Houston Chronicle -- read it before the Chronicle "disappears" the story into its inaccessible archives. I was not aware of this phenomenon, apparently quite common in our border towns. Now, isn't this a much better and cheaper way to spread our "values" among other nations than invading them?

For the past two years, Rachel Ortiz's commute to her El Paso school has begun each morning in Mexico.

As the sun rises over that side of the Rio Grande, the first-grader follows her father from their cinder-block home through the streets of Ciudad Juarez.

Aaron Ortiz holds his 6-year-old's pink backpack and later her hand. At the border they funnel onto the pedestrian bridge alongside dozens of other children with backpacks holding parents' hands. Then they are on the other side, saying goodbye at the gates of Vilas Elementary, where breakfast is served free and special classes are offered for English-language learners.

At that school, Rachel has made friends with American students. She writes reports on butterflies and decides she wants to be a doctor — for dogs — when she grows up. And when the school bell rings at the end of the day, her father is waiting outside, ready to walk her back home to Mexico.

This daily cycle is repeated up and down the borderland, where a history of cross-border friendships, families and marriages has eroded the lines between what is Mexican and what is American. In El Paso, the Mexico-to-United-States trek to school is so commonplace that border officials opened a special lane just for students at one of the crossings this month. More than 1,200 passed through that lane from Mexico on a recent morning. Some are college or private school students, but many, including Rachel, attend public schools.

In El Paso, most folks see this as part of the flux inherent to border life. But there has been some grumbling about spending U.S. tax dollars to educate students living in Mexico, especially this spring as the city's biggest school district prepares for a bond election. The El Paso Independent School District, which expects to take in 10,000 new students in the next five to eight years, will ask voters next month for permission to borrow $230 million for new schools.

"With this always comes the argument, 'Stop educating illegal aliens,' " said El PasoISD spokesman Luis Villalobos, who blames the growth on families moving to the area for the planned Fort Bliss expansion.

"Riverbend," the young Iraqi woman whose blog Baghdad Burninggave us a glimpse into her first hand, personal, beyond the TV cameras view of Baghdad during its invasion and occupation, is moving out of her home. She and her family will leave Baghdad for a new life elsewhere. She describes her feelings about leaving her home and what that home has become - not only in the past four years of devastation but what it is likely to become in the current and future efforts by outsiders to shape and redefine it. Americans are building walls and carving out Baghdad, a city which used to be integrated along ethnic / sectarian lines, into Shia and Sunni ghettos. Building walls to keep the enemy "in" or "out' has been an age old exercise in futility by occupiers and invaders, as Riverband points out. It has rarely worked in the past and is unlikely to work in the future. (Her post has been also published in Salon.)

The Great Wall of Segregation...…Which is the wall the current Iraqi government is building (with the support and guidance of the Americans). It's a wall that is intended to separate and isolate what is now considered the largest 'Sunni' area in Baghdad- let no one say the Americans are not building anything. According to plans the Iraqi puppets and Americans cooked up, it will 'protect' A'adhamiya, a residential/mercantile area that the current Iraqi government and their death squads couldn't empty of Sunnis.

The wall, of course, will protect no one. I sometimes wonder if this is how the concentration camps began in Europe. The Nazi government probably said, "Oh look- we're just going to protect the Jews with this little wall here- it will be difficult for people to get into their special area to hurt them!" And yet, it will also be difficult to get out.

The Wall is the latest effort to further break Iraqi society apart. Promoting and supporting civil war isn't enough, apparently- Iraqis have generally proven to be more tenacious and tolerant than their mullahs, ayatollahs, and Vichy leaders. It's time for America to physically divide and conquer- like Berlin before the wall came down or Palestine today. This way, they can continue chasing Sunnis out of "Shia areas" and Shia out of "Sunni areas".

April 27, 2007

Links to some recent events - all a bit disturbing, none wholly surprising.

Slam Dunk to Infamy:George Tenet, the former CIA chief who was one of Bush-Cheney's chief enablers in the criminal invasion of Iraq, is attempting to clean up his own guilty legacy and like all other rats, moving to abandon the sinking ship of the Bush administration. He has written a book, "At the Center of the Storm" where he admits making the now infamous "slam dunk" comment about Saddam Hussein owning WMD (based on faulty intelligence). But he also insists that nothing he said or did not say would have stopped Bush-Cheney from attacking Iraq. Another war criminal trying to wash the blood off his hands.

There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat," Tenet writes in a devastating judgment that is likely to be debated for many years. Nor, he adds, "was there ever a significant discussion" about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion.

Tenet described with sarcasm watching an episode of "Meet the Press" last September in which Cheney twice referred to Tenet's "slam dunk" remark as the basis for the decision to go to war.

"I remember watching and thinking, 'As if you needed me to say 'slam dunk' to convince you to go to war with Iraq,' " Tenet writes.

Execution at the Border: A very disturbing incidentcaught on tape showing a US Border Security Agent shooting a Mexican national attempting to cross into US territory, at point blank range. The agent is back at work and the office of the Border Security Patrol is more interested in finding out who leaked the video to the San Diego Union Tribune than investigating the shooting by the agent.

Limbaugh Blames Liberalism for VT Carnage: After any killing rampage by a crazed killer with a gun(s), the NRA and the right wing admonish us that any criticism of easy gun ownership is specious and a violation of the Second Amendment. Yet, after every nerve rattling disaster that befalls us, the right wing attack dogs never fail to lay the blame at the doorstep of liberalism - specifically, un- Christian values like secularism, feminism, homosexuality and even the teaching of the theory of evolution. So it doesn't come as a surprise at all that Rush Limbaughhas declared with authority what was ailing the severely disturbed Seung-hui Cho, the deranged killer who struck terror at Virginia Tech on the 16th of March. He was a liberal! Of course.

On the April 19th broadcast of Rush Limbaugh's radio show, the conservative radio host seemed to blame the deadly shooting rampage of Virginia Tech killer Seung-hui Cho on liberals, reports ABC News' Political Punch blog.

"If this Virginia Tech shooter had an ideology, what do you think it was? " Limbaugh queried. "This guy had to be a liberal. You start railing against the rich and all this other -- this guy's a liberal. He was turned into a liberal somewhere along the line. So it's a liberal that committed this act."

Limbaugh said that he was not "attacking liberalism" but was merely "pointing out a fact."

April 26, 2007

Superman and his mythical powers will forever inhabit the world of comic books, movies and our imagination. But Kryptonite, the green mineral he so feared (stolen by Lex Luther) may have a more mundane origin and non-lethal characteristics. A newly discovered mineralmined in Serbia, after being subjected to chemical analysis was found to closely resemble the composition of Kryptonite as described in the movie Superman Returns. The chemical formula of the mineral - "sodium lithium boron silicate hydroxide" is similar to that of the fictional Kryptonite in all respects, minus the fluorine. Also, it is white, not green and completely harmless to ordinary mortals. However, the mineral can not be named "Kryptonite" because it contains no krypton, a real element (inert gas) on the Periodic Table. Instead, it will be called Jadarite for Jadar, the name of the place in Serbia where the mine is located.

Kryptonite is no longer just the stuff of fiction feared by caped superheroes. A new mineral matching its unique chemistry - as described in the film Superman Returns - has been identified in a mine in Serbia.

According to movie and comic-book storylines, kryptonite is supposed to sap Superman's powers whenever he is exposed to its large green crystals. The real mineral is white and harmless, says Dr Chris Stanley, a mineralogist at London's Natural History Museum.

"I'm afraid it's not green and it doesn't glow either - although it will react to ultraviolet light by fluorescing a pinkish-orange," he told BBC News.

Researchers from mining group Rio Tinto discovered the unusual mineral and enlisted the help of Dr Stanley when they could not match it with anything known previously to science.

Once the London expert had unravelled the mineral's chemical make-up, he was shocked to discover this formula was already referenced in literature - albeit fictional literature.

"Towards the end of my research I searched the web using the mineral's chemical formula - sodium lithium boron silicate hydroxide - and was amazed to discover that same scientific name, written on a case of rock containing kryptonite stolen by Lex Luthor from a museum in the film Superman Returns.

"The new mineral does not contain fluorine (which it does in the film) and is white rather than green but, in all other respects, the chemistry matches that for the rock containing kryptonite."

Scientists may have found the first habitable planetoutside the solar system. The earthlike planet orbits a red dwarf star in the constellation, Libra. Although much closer to the star which it orbits (in thirteen days), it appears to have a temperate climate - red dwarf stars are much cooler than our own sun. The estimated temperature zone of 32 - 104 degrees fahrenheit (0 -40 degrees celsius) puts the planet in the Goldilocks Zone - not too hot, not too cold. This raises the possibility of the existence of water on the planet and could make it hospitable to the presence of life as we know it. Want to relocate to the new location? You could. It would take 20.5 years of travel time at the speed of light. Not in the realm of possibility yet, but certainly within the grasp of fevered imagination.

The first known planet beyond the solar system that could harbor life as we know it has been discovered, scientists report. The most Earthlike planet yet found, it orbits a red dwarf star and discovery.

The planet is estimated to be only 50 percent larger than Earth, making it the smallest planet yet found outside the solar system, according to a team led by Stephane Udry of the Geneva Observatory in Switzerland.

Known as Gliese 581 c, the newfound world is located in the constellation Libra, some 20.5 light-years away. The planet is named after the red dwarf star it orbits, Gliese 581, which is among the hundred closest stars to Earth.

Because the planet is 14 times nearer to its star than Earth is to the sun, a year there lasts just 13 days. Gravity on the planet's surface, though, may be twice as strong as Earth's gravity.

Despite the close proximity to its parent star, however, Gliese 581 c lies within the relatively cool habitable zone of its solar system. That's because red dwarfs are relatively small and dim, and are cooler than our sun, the team explained. The scientists estimated the planet's surface temperature at between 32 and 104 degrees Fahrenheit (0 and 40 degrees Celsius).

"This means water can exist in liquid form," Udry said. "If you want life like our own, then you need water."

The team reports its findings in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics.

April 25, 2007

During a few short weeks between the last frost and the first hot days of summer, the Texas country side is aflame in a riot of colors. A whole host of wild flowers paint the grassy patches in the fields and on the sides of roads in the most gorgeous shades of red, pink, yellow, ochre, blue and violet. The Texas Hill Country (a region between Houston and Austin) is especially resplendant with wild blooms at this time. Tours, picnics and sightseeing are planned in the spring in the rolling hill country. When my son was in college in Austin, I used to enjoy this lovely sight every year on our way to and back from visiting him. I haven't gone out that way in several years. But the breathtaking sight of miles and miles of hill side and open meadows covered in bright flowers is etched in my mind. In the midst of this rich carpet of petals, the brightly hued state flower, the Texas Bluebonnet dominates the landscape with its deep, eye catching purple - blue presence.

My good friend Linda recently sent me two unusual photos taken around Easter time this year, in two different parts of Texas - one where there was snow among the Bluebonnets and another where there was ... well, see for yourself!

April 23, 2007

I am coming to this story a bit late on purpose, in order to have some distance from the jagged nerves resulting from last Monday's insane mayhem at Virginia Tech. The most important people in this sorry, scary episode are the dead victims and their friends and families who will forever remain scarred by the actions of one dangerous mad man. But in a perverse way, because evil is always interesting, we turn our focuson the perpetrator. We try to figure out why someone would do something most of us wouldn't. Mass murders by lone killers are not new in America and the killers all turn out to be severely disturbed individuals. That much is usual enough. But when the murderer turns out to be "atypical" in some way, the focus spreads beyond the killer himself - to his (yes, they have all been males so far) family, community and race. In such instances, there is a second set of victims of vile stereotyping that sometimes spills over into unfair reprisals against innocent targets of guilt by association.

I have never identified much with ethnic, religious, regional "group identity" - no matter where I have lived. The conspicuous success or abject failure of a member of my community, race, cultural background etc. neither makes my heart burst with reflected pride nor bow my head in sympathetic shame. But I am not naive enough to ignore the truth that for a large number of people around me, including friends, neighbors and total strangers, it is a common yardstick to measure themselves and others.

Community group think quite often is an obsessive concern of minority communities themselves, caused by insecurity. Members of majority communities everywhere are comfortable and confident enough to march to the beat of their own drummers. Minorities on the other hand feel that they must "represent and uphold" a standard. Ironically, that standard is defined not always by the minorities themselves but what is perceived as the model the majority community wants them to represent (see an old post of mineon stereotyping). Willing to submit to that definition, perception becomes the reality. Identity often hinges upon collective pride, collective parochialism and on rare and tragic occasions, a stomach clenching fear of collective guilt and punishment.

African Americans of course have borne the biggest burden of negative social stereotyping in America . After 9/11, Middle Easterners and South Asians (Muslims and non-Muslims) have joined the list of "un-Americans." Now on the heels of the horror at Virginia Tech, another minority community is cowering in fear - the Korean-American community in particular and east Asian Americans in general. I haven't read the right wing blogs but it appears that some had started drumming up pre-emptive rage against Muslims / Arabs as soon as word came from eye-witnesses at VT that the gunman was Asian. How disappointed they must be now that the perpetrator turned out to be a member of an Asian "model" minority group often held up as an ideal for other "lazy" minorities to emulate.

This happens all the time, doesn't it?. When it is one of "ours," who commits a heinous crime, it is he/she/ the individual who did it. If it is one of "theirs," ... get out the lynch mob! But this is by no means a peculiarly American disease. Minority groups (Jews, Gypsies, Muslims, Sikhs, lower caste Hindus, Asians and Africans in diaspora) all over the world face this menace when one or a few among them anger the majority community. Faced with horror and frustrated rage, some people tend to forget that the act of one individual does not reflect on an entire community. Sometimes it doesn't even reflect on the family who nurtured a baby to angry adulthood.

It need not be this way but it is hard to overcome our own short sightedness and the need to lash out at someone after a terrible tragedy. We are often alone in our pain, rage and shame. The insane and violent act of one unhinged individual should be a cause for universal anguish and not selective vengeance.

Some personal musings of an Asian American journalist (San Jose Mercury News) on the Virginia Tech campus killings:

April 22, 2007

A little more than a month ago I wrote an articlewhere I examined the question of the possible evolutionary nature of human religiosity. Specifically, my question was addressed to why seemingly rational people trained in the rigorous scientific process would turn to religion, spirituality or superstition.

Within this larger academic question, I cited the case of an ex-student of mine, P.G., a man trained in the sciences who turned to a life of spiritual quest. P.G. is now a teacher in the yogic tradition with some following. Having known this person right up to the stage of his life when he decided to follow a new trajectory in his belief system, I decided to use his example to illustrate my puzzlement. Also, because P.G. is now a public persona with several references to his teachings, philosophy, public appearances etc. easily accessible on the World Wide Web, I felt comfortable in bringing him up. Had he been a private person, I would not have used his case in my article.

To my astonishment and considerable annoyance, in the last couple or three weeks, I started receiving e-mails from persons claiming to be associated with P.G. in his current incarnation, in which they raise objections to my public blog post about him. Although one of them claimed hearsay (wrong!), the emails don't actually challenge my assertions about P.G.'s earlier life. The correspondents are just not happy that I publicly discussed the details of his "pre-monastic" days when I was familiar with him. In their emails, P.G.'s devotees /associates have requested me to "withdraw" my comments without really giving me any solid grounds as to why I should do that except to suggest vaguely that my post has in some way "harmed" P.G. and his spiritual enterprise.

Since these emails came to me unsolicited with no implicit understanding of confidentiality, without naming names, I will quote from them some relevant lines. One e-mail message contained the following.

"The postings on the blog have now created much confusion and led to mundane discussion and gossip. The writings about his life after his secondary school until his monkhood are not based on direct information (not coming from Swamiji himself) and they are amounting to slander. Since you wrote that you affectionately remember him as a youth, I hope that you will honour my request to please withdraw your comments and the picture of Swamiji from that posting."

I read the above message as a veiled attempt at intimidation by a devotee who is unhappy with my narrative perhaps because in some way it contradicts the image of the guru which he/she wants to promote. If the devotees are confused and are indulging in gossip, shouldn't they ask their spiritual leader to clear up the confusion instead of haranguing me? And how strong is their faith and conviction that they were shaken by some casual statements of a total stranger? I decided to ignore this attempt at thought policing and let the matter stand where it is.

Then I received a rambling email purporting to be from the "legal counsel" of P.G. Interestingly enough, this one makes no reference to slander or asks any questions about the veracity of what I have described in my article. There is however some earnest attempt to "explain" my observations in light of P.G.'s enlightenment and subsequent monkhood. The main thrust of the message is that my blog post may have "hurt" the guru personally and his relationship with his sponsors. Again, there is an appeal to remove references to P.G.'s current life and spiritual / business pursuits. I will quote some relevant material here from this email.

"Apparently you were a good influence on his life, inspiring him to excel in the sciences. .... These personal comments about him have been very hurtful and have created unnecessary confusion and precipitated several inquiries to the charitable non-profit organization that sponsors him. I am not sure what your motivation was in posting these personal remarks about him on the internet, but I’m sure that you have no interest or reason to criticize, discredit, or ridicule him personally or to damage his reputation. Even though you may not understand or agree with his spiritual vows and decision to contribute towards society spiritually and culturally rather than materially, out of civility, courtesy, respect for him and your past caring teacher-student relationship with him, again I respectfully request you to remove these unnecessary personal comments about him from the internet."

My initial response to the above message was irritation at being again told what I should or should not put in my private blog site which I did not invite any of P.G.'s devotees to read. However, on further reflection I felt bad about inadvertently exposing P.G. to scrutiny that he did not expect and I myself did not intend. Very reluctantly, I have decided to modify the original post in question without making any changes to the objective content of my article. P.G.'s story (factual and verifiable) and the ensuing comments still remain in the original post. The modification I have made will essentially "disassociate" the P.G. I knew in the past from his current reincarnation, the Swami. No one reading the original article will be able to make the connection between P.G., my ex-student and P.G., the Guru.

Indeed, I had no intention of harming P.G. I suspect that if he has been hurt by my post, it is not because of "slander" but because of some "truth" that was not known to his devotees before my article became available on the internet. My motivation in writing the orginal post on evolutionary pressures and religion was an academic one. I have on several previous occasions alluded to religion and rationality on the blog which have some times generated spirited and civil discussions. In this particular post, I decided for the first time to break my own rule of avoiding personal anecdotes involving other people's lives in order to illustrate a point, even though this person is now a public figure. Also, while I have severe disagreements with P.G.'s philosophy and his chosen path of serving society, I did not write his story in order to compromise him personally or professionally. My intention in writing it was an attempt to understand the workings of a religious mind; using P.G.'s story was incidental. As I have said before, I still recall the young P.G. with affection for his bright and earnest ways. I realize full well that I am at liberty to state facts and opinions in my blog post about my side of a multi-faceted story. Perhaps it would be appropriate for me to take a stand on this matter on the basis of the First Amendment and freedom of speech against P.G's acolytes. However, I am not on a crusade against P.G. and the reason for my decision is my own queasiness about P.G. and me. I have "cleaned" up the blog post in a way that anonymizes the post and does not lead from the P.G. of my past, to P.G., the publicly known spiritual leader of today.

As my regular readers know well, I have been writing my candid opinions on political and religious matters for some time on this blog. Never have I seen the depth of emotions (and back room machinations, as Dean points out) that my post on P.G. seems to have stirred up in some. It is baffling that an innocuous and inconsequential blog post would raise so much concern. I will also note that in their message to me, P.G.'s associates acknowledged that my world view differs from theirs. Yet, they took it upon themselves to explain to me the details of P.G.'s philosophical and spiritual stance and numerous accolades and accomplishments. There was even an attempt at educating me on the validity of his teachings which reconcile science and the vedic tradition. It was as if even after knowing my lack of religious convictions, they wanted me to see P.G. as they see him - a godly man. That I wrote about P.G. purely from a human interest angle - as a "person of interest" seems difficult for them to accept.

As I said in my original article about P.G. and me, "We inhabit different worlds." But across those worlds, courtesy is an acceptable currency of discourse. But trying to "convert or convince" by preaching is not. My own readers are not particularly interested in P.G. or his activities. They have moved on from the more than month old post to other matters that interest us here.

Only two (and a reluctant third) people have agreed with my decision to "modify" the post. Others, including perhaps my co-bloggers, may disapprove. They think that P.G.'s religious "thought police" who want only P.G.'s mythology out in the public sphere in the interest of their spiritual / business purposes will benefit from the modification. Be assured that this was not the reason for my decision. The modification is not so much for the benefit of P.G.'s own or his adherent's comfort level but that of my own. I have explained why. But I welcome you to take me apart in the comments section. :-)

April 21, 2007

In Carhart II, on Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time since Roe v. Wade upheld an abortion-restrictive law which contained no exception for the health of the mother. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion is flatly indefensible; the "analysis" is pathetically dishonest (and maybe also incompetent), and the result is, of course, atrocious. The possible good news? In response to the Court's signaling of its intention to shrink abortion rights in the post-O'Connor era (not to mention the inevitable overturning of the Roe line of cases with the addition of one new conservative Justice), there is a push in Congress to codify women's choice.

For analysis and criticism of this decision, see Lyle Denniston here and here, Jill Filipovic here, Marty Lederman here, Jack Balkin here and here, and even the notoriously conservative and anti-choice Michael Paulsen attacking the Court's absurd mistreatment of precedent here.

And then check out Rick Garnett's post at PrawfsBlawg, in which he expresses disappointment that commentators have suggested that it is more than just coincidence that the five anti-choice votes come from Catholics. Now, I don't ordinarily go after the blog posts of law professors--not even unabashed Christofascist Notre Dame professors who may or may not be visiting at Chicago--but seriously, Professor Garnett--Rick--can I call you Rick?--cry me a river you poor, oppressed, white, non-Mormon, Christian, affluent male. (Incidentally, maybe it's just because I'm from New England where most Christians are Catholics, or maybe it's just because I'm not living in the 18th century, but I don't think that Catholics are singled out in this country by people who will give Christians a pass--it's a "supernatural thinking" thing, not an "allegiance to this particular branch of supernatural thinking which is no more or less absurd than any nearly identical but differently titled supernatural thinking" thing.) Garnett writes:

It is, increasingly, thought to be enough to discredit an argument or position -- any argument or position -- merely to note that the person who makes it is a religious believer, and to write off any moral argument with which one disagrees as "religious." (This practice, of course, does not run both ways: arguments against torture, the death penalty, race discrimination, and income inequality are "secular"; arguments against partial-birth abortion or the creation of embryos for research are "religious.") It appears, increasingly, that arguments whose trajectory is not in line with the standard liberal / autonomy / choice line are not only rejected, but declared not to be permissible arguments.

But Rick, arguments against abortion and stem cell research are religious arguments. The arguments are made in secular terms, but the "baby murderer!" cry is based solidly in supernatural thinking. Tell me, how many atheists strenuously object to the things to which you object? I'll get to the last sentence in the above paragraph later, in the context of a particularly revealing comment.

Following the jump: "words are meaningless! (when I want them to be)" and more.

April 18, 2007

On the heels of the US Supreme Court's decision on upholding the ban on partial-birth abortion, it was the first time I actually read the controversial legislation, denounced by pro-choice advocates and hailed by anti-abortion activists ( or, denounced by anti-life activists and hailed by pro-life protesters...err, I give up trying to find the politically correct terms!)

This time it is not so much about the painting as it is about the story behind it.

After a visit to a Southwestern art gallery in Tucson, Arizona featuring some fierce looking female nudes, I wanted to paint a similar woman with personality. I visualized a woman who was mature, confident and completely comfortable in her "bare" skin. The result was the accompanying painting roughly made to look like an Indian Gypsy woman. I prepared the canvas to lend an uneven texture which provided a wrinkled look. The aim was to create a figure that would not be too pretty and certainly not simpering. The image posted here is "Photo Shopped" to make it family friendly. The original is anatomically correct.

My son was in his early teens when I painted this portrait. Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber was in the news, having resurfaced after the Oklahoma City bombing. My son was a very busy and outgoing person in his youth and our home was the meeting place of a large number of his friends who came and went at all hours of the day. The boys would pass my studio niche on their way to the basement game room and often comment on the work in progress on the easel. This particular piece was observed in complete silence by them, all through its creation. A couple of years later I had a small exhibition in a local artists' co-op gallery. The gallery required me to provide a title for each work on display. I had a hard time naming my paintings, particularly this enigmatic female who doesn't tell an obvious story. During the days before the exhibition I was in the habit of constantly pestering my family to come up with names for the paintings and this one was a stumbling block for everyone. One day my son blurted out in exasperation, "Why don't you just call it the Unaboober? All my friends call it that."

It took several minutes of astonished and hysterical laughter before I fully digested what he had said. Although I did not submit that name to the gallery, the lady on the left has been the Unaboober in my mind ever since and the computer image file of the painting bears the same apt name.

April 17, 2007

We are aware that Dick Cheney suffers from a serious and chronically poor heart condition. But his cardiac health goes beyond the common medical definition, spilling over into the metaphorical realm of heart disease - "cold hearted" indifference and ... well, "heartlessness."

Since early March, when his "friend" and trusted aide, Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury charges in the Valerie Plame case, the Vice President has not spoken, commisserated with or otherwise contacted Libby! And why didn't the VP take a few minutes to at least say "Sorry you are going to the slammer, pal".. or.. " Thanks for being my political cannon fodder?" Was he too busy, not have access to a phone or was he in an "undisclosed location" for security reasons? No, he didn't do it because according to Cheney "There hasn't been occasion to do so."!!!!

Vice President Dick Cheney, asked on CBS's "Face the Nation" Sunday if he had spoken to I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, his former chief of staff who was convicted in early March of perjury and obstruction of justice, said, "There hasn't been occasion to do so."

In response, CBS's chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer said he was "surprised," and repeated his question to the vice president.

Cheney responded again, "I just — I haven't had occasion to do that." When asked if Cheney felt at all responsible for Libby's demise, the vice president answered, "Bob, I'm simply not going to get into the case. And I think it would be inappropriate for me to do so."

April 16, 2007

It seems odd to write the profile of a long dead author with Current Affairs as one of the tags. By the end of this post you will know why it is entirely appropriate here.

In my second or third year of college, seeking a break from chemistry text books, I stumbled upon a novel called Babbitt by Sinclair Lewis in the dusty stacks of the English Lit section of the school library. I had never heard of the book nor the author and must confess that I picked it up solely for the unusual sounding title. The book proved to be very interesting. I had never read anything like that before about America written by an American. In a laconic, peaceful and polite manner, Lewis methodically devastated two iconic pillars of American society - middle class consumerism and small business. It was a stunning, if not a stirring eye opener. My thought was "Was the guy a communist?" He wasn't, I found out later. In fact, Lewis was the quintessential middle class, liberal, educated American who was viscerally opposed to all forms of oppressive orthodoxy whether it issued from the left or the right of the political spectrum. He didn't seek his heroes or philosophy from outside America. He has been called a "satirist" and a "realist." But I suspect that at heart, Lewis was a romantic. He was focused on America which he wished to see become the symbol of fairness and decency.

After Babbitt, I looked for more volumes by Lewis but my college library had no other book by the author. I didn't think about Lewis for a long time and later once again, I found him in a library, this time in the excellent public library system of Omaha, Nebraska. I quickly read three more of his books and watched the movie adaptation of another. Two of the books, Main Street and It Can't Happen Here were satires in the same free swinging vein of Babbitt, written not with bitterness or anger but with pessimistic resignation, humor and both microscopic and telescopic insights. The third, Arrowsmith is a departure from the style - a gentle tribute to a country doctor and his dedication to humane scientific research (Lewis was the son and grandson of doctors, born in Sauk Center, Minnesota). In Main Street, Lewis' target was small town America - its genteel stuffiness, reverse snobbery of anti-intellectualism and close minded prejudices lurking behind the outwardly calm and order. Elmer Gantry (I saw the movie, haven't read the book) was another withering satire which caused an uproar among the clergy and pious churchgoers by exposing the hypocrisy and lechery of a charlatan preacher. (Burt Lancaster was fantastic in the movie version.)

I am currently in the middle of an anthology of short stories by Lewis and this post was inspired by my thoughts straying once again to his literary legacy. The real reason I am writing about Sinclair Lewis today is the novel he wrote many years after Main Street, Babbitt and Arrowsmith.It Can't Happen Here was published in 1935 when America was in the painful throes of the Great Depression and the gathering storm of fascism brewing in Italy, Germany and Spain was not on the mind of the average American.

April 13, 2007

Inspired by Shunya, I took the bold step to change the look of Accidental Blogger to a custom design after using one of Typepad's pre-set templates for nearly a year and a half (to which I had become quite sentimentally attached, I must confess). The main motivation was to increase the font size for easier reading. The new look is quite Spartan but provides a better focus on the posts. Everything else remains the same as before. Please let me know how you like the new uncluttered theme. So far, only my husband has weighed in. He likes it.

April 12, 2007

"Love and Marriage, Go Together Like AHorse and Carriage," goes a popular song by Frank Sinatra. But according to Warren Chisum (R- Pampa), the powerful conservative House Appropriations Committe chairman of the Texas legislature, it should read more like "Sticks and Carrots."

I have lived in Texas for close to nine years now. During this period Chisum has at various times helped pass anti-gay legislation, attempted to ban the teaching of the theory of evolution (which he considers a Jewish conspiracy) and repeatedly tried to introduce Biblical educationin public schools. Now he is going after the marriage and divorce lawsof Texas by providing incentives for people to stay married and discouraging divorce. The incentive / disincentive plan is to be put in place through "covenant" contracts for marriages where couples promise to work hard to save their marriage by enrolling in "eight hour" pre-marital counseling sessions with the clergy, faith and community based organizations and mental health professionals. Prospective couples will learn not just communication and crisis management skills but also "forgiveness skills." Those complying with Chisum's guidelines will be rewarded with a waiver of their marriage license fee of $30 and those who give the program a miss will see theirs double to $60. Also, enrolled couples can get a no-fault divorce after a waiting period of 60 days, the current waiting period in Texas, if their marriage is indeed unsalvageable. Those not taking Chisum's recommended classes will have to wait for two years! I wonder if the "covenant" couples will also have to renounce the theory of evolution, denounce gays and declare the Bible as the guiding light of their lives. How will affluent couples be affected by this law? Or will they even care?

The plan, according to Chisum and his conservative supporters will reduce the poverty rate for low income single women and their dependent children, the commonest economic victims of a broken marriage. That, according to them will reduce the cost of welfare and other social services. So, where will Chisum get the money to set up his "marriage and morality" program? Why, he intends to take $10 million from the block grant set aside by the state for the welfare program, of course!

AUSTIN — Debate over government's role in matters of love, marriage and divorce begins today when the Texas House considers a bill doubling marriage license fees to $60 unless couples take premarital classes. Couples agreeing to eight-hour courses in conflict management and communication skills would get their marriage licenses free under the bill sponsored by Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, a leading House conservative.

Chisum's bill, with its carrot-and-stick approach, is part of the Texas Conservative Coalition agenda to ease the demand for poverty programs by reducing divorce rates that can financially hurt the newly single. The package could create voluntary "covenant" marriage contracts with tougher conditions to discourage divorce and lengthen waiting periods for no-fault divorces unless couples undergo marriage crisis classes.

"It's in the state's interest for marriages to be saved," said John Colyandro, the coalition's executive director. "A lot of single-parent households are in poverty. Once they're in poverty, that makes them eligible for a whole host of programs they might not otherwise be involved with."

Opponents of the bill call it coercion and meddling by the state. But the self righteous Chisum is unfazed by such criticism. (Remember the conservative credo of "Get government out of our lives" when it comes to taxes, regulation of businesses and private property?)

But critics say the proposed measures — especially those lengthening waiting periods for divorces — amount to government intrusion into private lives. While Republicans have long decried the "nanny state" of liberal social safety nets, some House Democrats now complain about GOP meddling into highly personal decisions they say are best left to individuals.

Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, said, .... "I just don't think that's something the government ought to coerce," Coleman said. "It's truly getting into someone's marriage bed. It's the state going beyond what I think its role is and intervening or coercing or penalizing someone who's seeking to get married."

Chisum's bills requiring premarital classes and crisis classes for marriages in trouble include a separate funding proposal for low-income Texans. It would tap into nearly $10 million in a federal welfare block grant to help pay for the classes.

"We're saying families are important to us," Chisum said Tuesday. "If that's the nanny state, then so we are. We're very pro-family."

Oh no, Mr. Chisum. When goody goody liberals meddle in our lives, THAT is the Nanny State. When right wingers like you try to "improve" our lives, it is the the Nurse RatchedState.

Update: The Texas House has okayedChisum's Incentive Plan. If the bill becomes law, it would take effect Sept. 1. And instead of the doubling of the marriage fee from $30 to $60 as proposed earlier, the bill will require "non-covenant" marriage applicants to pay the nice round sum of $100 for license.

We are currently in an endless loop of outrage over racially charged stories in the MSM -the flap over Don Imus' nasty crack about the Rutgers women's basketball team and the more chilling Duke Lacrosse team'scase involving false accusations of rape. Here is a relatively obscure incidentinvolving blatant racism mixed with patriotic fervor and police brutalitywhich has so far not been reported in the major media. (via Gene Expression).

Sikhs are not Arabs although technically an Arab could become a Sikh since Sikhism is a religion, not a race. The overwhelming number of Sikhs are in fact from the northern region of India. If this story is true, the pertinent question to ask however, is what does an immigrant have to do for America ... including serve in its wars, to not to have to hear, "Go back to your f*****g country?"

On Friday March 30, 2007 at around 3:00pm, Mr. Kuldip Singh Nag, a Sikh American who was awarded the Bronze Star for his service in the U.S. Navy during the first Gulf War, was at his home in Joliet, IL when a local police officer noticed that a van parked on Mr. Nag’s private property had expired registration tags. Upon being confronted with this, Mr. Nag’s wife, Vera Kaur Nag, informed the officer that the van is parked on their driveway and was inoperable.

Mr. Nag then came outside to answer the officer’s questions regarding the van. The Joliet police officer then demanded that Mr. Nag park the van inside his garage and not on the driveway, to which Mr. Nag responded to the officer that it was not possible and that regardless, the van is parked on his private property and he has a right to park it on his driveway.

At this moment, the officer pulled out his pepper spray and attacked Mr. Nag. As Mr. Nag screamed in agony, the officer removed his baton and violently struck Mr. Nag numerous times until he fell to the ground. While the assault ensued, the officer was reported by both Mr. and Mrs. Nag as saying, “You f****** Arab! You f****** immigrant, go back to your f****** country before I kill you!”

Mr. Nag’s wife and six year-old child both witnessed the violent assault, which resulted in Mr. Nag immediately being admitted to the hospital where he stayed for five days due to complaints of intense pain and head trauma. Mr. Nag also received numerous bruises and a serious head injury which have caused him to go blind for several minutes at a time.

Note: So far the only sources of this story seem to be SALDEF (The Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund) and south Asian bloggers who have used the SALDEF link as their referene. I will wait and see what else emerges, what the investigation will reveal and if it will be reported more widely in Chicago area papers and other media outlets.

April 11, 2007

Not being a regular reader of legal blogs, this storycame to my attention a few days late (via Sujatha).

A top Constitutional scholar from Princeton who gave a televised speech that slammed President George W. Bush's executive overreach was recently told that he had been added to the Transportation Security Administration's terrorist watch list. He shared his experience this weekend at the law blog Balkinization.

"I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list," he said.

When inquiring with a clerk why he was on the list, Murphy was asked if he had participated in any peace marches. "We ban a lot of people from flying because of that," a clerk said.

Murphy then explained that he had not marched, but had "in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution."

The clerk responded, "That'll do it."

The law blogs are all over this story. Speculations range from whether Professor Murphy is indeed on the No Fly list for his criticism of the Bush administration or whether some other bureaucratic considerations went into deciding his flying status. Some have expressed veiled skepticism of Murphy's version of the incident and others have questioned how much an airlines clerk actually knows about the Byzantine calculations that go into the FBI's decision to put such restrictions on an individual. The Bush administration's mean hearted and vindictive attitude against real and perceived enemies are by now common knowledge. There is hardly any lie, character assassination or deception that the Bushies will not stoop to in order to thwart a critic. What is also well known is that their bark is quite a bit more vicious than the promised bite. Numerous illegal and unconstitutional schemes hatched by Bush-Cheney-Rove have come to light in the last few years but it is clear that they don't always carry out their vengeful acts with much precision and care. More Keystone Kops with the blood thirst of Attila the Hun. My co-bloggers and I have been exchanging our own thoughts on this matter behind the scene via e-mail. I will reproduce their opinions here sequentially to show what we at A.B. think about Professor Murphy's flight plight.

Dean: Lovely. I'm not sure what's more disturbing: the revival of sedition as a feeble excuse for monitoring and control, or the more banal bureaucratic blandness of the "clerk's" purported responses to Murphy: "That'll do it." Really?

Joe: I don't know that I really buy it; I think that Jack Balkin's reaction, as usual, makes a lot of sense to me. Whether he was in fact added to a terrorist watch list, it seems unlikely that an airline clerk would be able to give a reliable account of why that is the case. It's all over the legal blogosphere--Solove has a good post up at Concurring Opinions. It seems to me that bureaucratic incompetence is a more likely cause, even given the Bush Administration's horrific record on, well, everything; and that the biggest problem is the lack of transparency and the lack of a procedure for getting one's name removed if one is wrongfully on such a list.

But I do like Dean's point about supporting Alito! Karma, gotta love it.

Dean: Thanks, Joe, for these links to Balkinization and CO, where good points are made, but also where discussion eventually descends into nanny-nanny sophistry. Balkin anticipates this trajectory when he begins his remarks with a hyper-academic positing of a gratuitous burden of proof: "I have no reason to believe that Professor Murphy has not accurately reported what airport personnel told him..." Of course, he has plenty of reasons to "believe" (or at least suspect) such might be the case: the information has been passed along via a blog (his own, I realize) from an intermediate source, he is hearing only one telling of the story, and it's a lulu of a story, for starters. The Solove/Kerr debate at CO is remarkable, though, with Kerr defensively insisting he hasn't missed a "larger issue." But he has, and so perhaps has Solove, whose remarks are otherwise sensible, if verbose.

The larger issue is, as you suggest, Joe, that this is very likely stupid bureaucracy manifesting itself on the front line, and...here's the crux of the issue: this would be the case even outside a context of heightened security! Solove suggests that the security measures themselves account for the ineptitude, but I'm more inclined to believe that, at most, they merely compound it. This is why I qualified bureaucracy as "banal" in my first response.

I'm pleased, though, that we are, pace Tim O'Reilly, conducting a very civil discussion here, albeit one outside a public forum. (Well, now you are doing it inside it, Dean).

Sujathaweighed in with her own suspicions. She wondered if the original NO FLY list may have been compiled with the help of the MIA, the British spy agency. Could Professor Murphy have been confused with an IRA terrorist on the list?

Anything is possible but we'll never know . Unless Congress starts cleaning house thoroughly, we will continue to pay a price with our civil rights, peace of mind and simple dignity long after this administration is gone because of the dirty little legacy of suspicion, vindictiveness and impetuous illegalities that it would leave behind in its wake.

April 09, 2007

Kiran Desai had won the Man Booker prize for her novel The Inheritance of Loss well before I got in the queue for the book at my local library. I was impressed by her achievement (another Arundhati Roy in the making, perhaps). Most of the other Booker prize winners were among my favorites, so my expectations of this book were fairly high.

There is a mildly interesting article in the New York Times about the nastiness in some parts of the blogging world and a call for civility and self policing by some bloggers. The article is rich in instances of the dismal and vicious quality of on-line discourse involving mostly anonymous bloggers and commenters. But it is rather sparse on suggestions of controlling the menace (I doubt there are any effective ways). Issues ranging from name calling, libel, censorship to death threats to bloggers are discussed. I personally find the idea of anonymous blogging, even good quality blogging, rather unappetizing - except in the case of political writers writing from totalitarian or other hazardous locations. If one is interested in orating in the public square, one should do so standing on a soapbox with one's name on it or some indicator to one's identity. But I am not the one setting the rules here. Every blogger follows his or her own level of courage or comfort and it is up to the reader to decide whose voice they find authentic regardless of known/ hidden identity. With no one to answer to, some just choose to abuse their minuscule and transitory presence in the cacophonous and overcrowded cyberworld. Hardly surprising. And just as no one has to read an offensive blog, no blogger should have to tolerate an uncivil reader who fouls up the forum. Deleting / moderating comments is perfectly okay. No pure and high faluting "freedom of speech" issue at stake here. The level of smugness and self importance is way beyond the weight of the matter at hand.

April 08, 2007

A curious story (link: Sujatha) from the automotive section of Detroit News Online.

Plug it in, fire it up, Mr. President

The Detroit News

Credit Ford Motor Co. CEO Alan Mulally with saving the leader of the free world from self-immolation.

Mulally told journalists at the New York auto show that he intervened to prevent President Bush from plugging an electrical cord into the hydrogen tank of Ford's hydrogen-electric plug-in hybrid at the White House last week. Ford wanted to give the Commander-in-Chief an actual demonstration of the innovative vehicle, so the automaker arranged for an electrical outlet to be installed on the South Lawn and ran a charging cord to the hybrid. However, as Mulally followed Bush out to the car, he noticed someone had left the cord lying at the rear of the vehicle, near the fuel tank.

"I just thought, 'Oh my goodness!' So, I started walking faster, and the President walked faster and he got to the cord before I did. I violated all the protocols. I touched the President. I grabbed his arm and I moved him up to the front," Mulally said. "I wanted the president to make sure he plugged into the electricity, not into the hydrogen This is all off the record, right?"

This story can be the source of endless cruel jokes for comedians and Bush haters. But my question has less to do with what might have befallen Bush and Cheney and more with "what is Ford thinking?" Has Ford built a hydrogen-electric plug-in hybrid car in whose hydrogen tank you can mistakenly plug in an electric chord with lethal results? I mean, fuel efficiency, reduced carbon emission and energy savings are well and good but safety of operation has to be the prime consideration. Or is it that with its already pitiful record of vehicle safety, Ford doesn't care very much about exploding cars? After all, the iconic Ford CEO Lee Iacocca was fond of saying, "Safety doesn't sell."I hope Ralph Nader is paying attention.

April 06, 2007

After a long break, we finally managed a family vacation to Baltimore and Philadelphia. I wasn't going to bore you with the details of what would have been a very mundane account that any traveler could come up with, except for the fact that we paid a visit to the much-touted King Tutankhamun and the Golden Age of the Pharaohs exhibit currently at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia.